Oh girls are born with it as an effect of original sin! The allure of vanity is apparent very early on. One of the most beautiful elements of our roles as helpmates became very twisted and it's now one of our biggest battles. But the (un)natural tendency does get reinforced by the world, the flesh and the devil, mothers, other women, other girls, society, boys, men, even fathers.

Good Catholic men may be complaining and rightly so, but there is a huge demographic who are perfectly happy taking in the sights, and many of them are sitting right in the pews. If boys were the epitome of purity and modesty themselves, and paid no attention to immodest girls, a large percentage of girls would follow their lead and straighten out; quickly, I might add. God made us to want to please. And if it were made abundantly clear that immodesty was repugnant to men, it is guaranteed that immodesty would be as difficult to find as modesty is today. But as it is, the immodest girls are generally the most pursued. Even in our parishes full of boys who should know better. In the world, "immodest women" isn't a billion dollar industry for nothing. It's unfortunate but the biggest weaknesses of men and women feed off each other.


I've never fully bought into the idea that women dress for each other. I will be honest, I never felt that way. I have had to deduce that I am a little odd in this respect. So it may be that I am just incapable of putting myself into the shoes of a woman who does dress for other women and I can't analyze the thoughts and motives that run behind it. If someone could describe why, that would be really helpful. That's the part that doesn't compute for me. Why? What do they get out of it? To me neither sex would need to be attractive if it weren't for other sex. So women dressing for each other, either in direct competition, or even in friendly fawning, seems like it is in a bid to see who is highest on the beauty totem pole and therefore who is most attractive to men, or who could match the man that is highest on the totem pole. It just seems like a basic animal truth to me. But I am open to convincing explanations otherwise, because I know I could be missing some pieces of that puzzle.

I understand the arguments made in favor of nature and free will, but I disagree with Fanny taking it to the point of completely excluding nurture. Pax is right, it is both. Otherwise, what would be the sense in parents teaching their children anything? If nurture has no part whatsoever, we might as well throw our children to the streets to raise themselves. But we don't. We put in a lot of effort and if we don't put in the effort or if we give bad examples, we answer to God. Why? Why would God bother creating the family unit and rewarding or punishing parents for their parenting if it makes no difference?

It is not the ultimate factor in a child's salvation, but it does still matter very much. If any child has a fighting chance at salvation it is usually through some sort of nurture. Unless they are St. Paul and convert through the direct intervention of Our Lord. That tends to be a little rarer though. Most of us depend on parental influence first, for better or worse. 

Even in cases of adult children falling away, you never know if there was a seed planted by nurture that will help bring them back someday. 

I understand the arguments made in favor of nature and free will, but I disagree with Fanny taking it to the point of completely excluding nurture. Pax is right, it is both. Otherwise, what would be the sense in parents teaching their children anything? If nurture has no part whatsoever, we might as well throw our children to the streets to raise themselves. But we don't. We put in a lot of effort and if we don't put in the effort or if we give bad examples, we answer to God. Why? Why would God bother creating the family unit and rewarding or punishing parents for their parenting if it makes no difference?

It is not the ultimate factor in a child's salvation, but it does still matter very much. If any child has a fighting chance at salvation it is usually through some sort of nurture. Unless they are St. Paul and convert through the direct intervention of Our Lord. That tends to be a little rarer though. Most of us depend on parental influence first, for better or worse.

Even in cases of adult children falling away, you never know if there was a seed planted by nurture that will help bring them back someday.

I never said nurture doesn't help, I only said free will is the bottom line.  For no matter how well a parent nurtures his children, free will is there for a child to choose evil.  And no matter how poor the nurture, free will is there to choose good.
Too many parents with fallen young adult children blame themselves when free will is to blame.

Even in cases of adult children falling away, you never know if there was a seed planted by nurture that will help bring them back someday.

That applies 100% to me. The seed was that somehow I learned fear of God, which is about all I learned of the faith. My Dad and grandfather taught me courage, responsibility, honesty and to jump in front of a bullet for your family. My mother and father taught me what marriage is by their example, as they were always faithful to each other till death.  

Do your children socialize regularly with anyone outside your family?
.
The rare families we know who keep to good standards of modesty do not live close enough to ever be close friends with our children.

Yes they do socialize with people outside of the family. Our chapel has a congregation of about 200 people in total, so there are people their age. We homeschool, so their cirlcle of "friends" is nowhere near what it was for me when I was going to a large public school, however, despite my being "popular" because I was a jock, today looking back, I would call everyone an acquaintance rather than a real friend. These trad children have more real friends because they are among families that are like them. Despite my being in a school of like 1500 students, "friends" came and went, maybe lasting two years. The reason was that they were different than my family.

My children are a good example for others, but we have to watch for rotten apples that could influence one of our girls. All the others are not easily swayed by the group, they are leaders, and have good self esteem.

Very few women truly understand the effect that they way they dress, and look, and behave can have on men. (They know exactly the effect, their purpose is precisely to attract men. What they do not know is that a man can be attracted by anything with a pulse as long as it is easy)

Is part of the conflict here that we are so desensitized? We know on some level but maybe the conscious mind and the subconscious instincts don't always match up? The fashions appeal to our vanity and our baser instincts but we aren't always fully conscious of that. Even if we speak the fashion language, we are proud, our intellects are dulled, and we don't always have a full grasp on the follow through and what that actually means in terms of virtue and vice. Especially since there are so few good examples around. It takes someone else pointing it out to us. But we have to be open to putting two and two together because our pride can rear up and cause us to deny it or fight it because it's an uncomfortable and embarrassing truth to face.

Even if we trads are given a cursory understanding of what modesty and purity are, it can still take years for us to deepen that understanding, if we are open to it. It's an ever-evolving and ever-deepening process, just like acquiring any virtue. 

The late Rev. Patrick Kelly, O. P. used to say, "Keep your feet planted solidly on the ground, and your heart in Heaven."

If we teach our children to pray from infancy so that they can sing troparia like Christ is Risen (Pascha), Blessed art Thou, O Christ our God (Pentecost), When Thou O Lord was baptized in the Jordan (Epiphany), and It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos (Divine Liturgy), and also pray the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, and Glory Be as early as three years of age, then there is less chance that they will fall away from the faith. Faith is a lived experience, so the home must be a domestic church. The above troparia are sung throughout the church year repeatedly, and if the parents sing these at home, then the children will have their feet planted solidly on the ground and their hearts in Heaven, their true home.

In being TOO rigorous, almost Jansenistic, there's always the risk of backlash, resentment (often projected against Traditional Catholicism), and "forbidden fruit" syndrome.  One has to know the children involved and get a feel for how they are going to react.

I have 4 girls.  I could stand my ground with an iron fist and ruthlessly impose in unbending Draconian fashion:  absolutely no makeup, requirement to wear nothing but glorified potato sacks for clothes, no Jєωelry whatsoever, absolutely no contact with any boys, and absolutely no contact with anyone who's not as perfect as we are.  What do I imagine their reaction will be the SECOND they gain a bit of independence from me?  Especially since there's no requirement that's ever been taught by the Church along these lines.  

I allow my daughters to wear a very light amount of makeup (never to the point of looking like clowns or prostitutes) and allow them to wear nice clothes that may be somewhat elegant and even form-fitting (without violating the standards of modesty laid down by Pius XI), allow them to wear a modest amount of simple Jєωelry ... letting them feel pretty.  I allow them to mix with boys in very tightly-controlled situations ... but not to date one on one and certainly not in a "steady" fashion.  If they don't get somewhat familiar with boys, with their faults and failings, how are they to pick out a good husband from among all the bums out there?  By acquiring this familiarity, they will be less likely to be ensnared by the blandishments of the first good-looking dirtbag who comes along, gives them attention, and tells them that they're pretty.  Being more adept at sifting among the good and the bad, they will be in a better position to pick out someone who's more likely to be virtuous and otherwise compatible with their temperament and character.  Similarly with my boys.  If I never let them have some exposure to girls, then that merely increases the likelihood of their falling for the first pretty seductress who comes on to them.  But if they have some familiarity with women, they'll be more likely to see through this and realize how shallow and ugly these types of women really are.  There's a point where too LITTLE exposure can make someone more prone to fall into impurity ... obviously within limits.

I let my kids drink a little wine and beer from time to time ... within strict limits.  I could be like a Puritanical Prot and prohibit even a whiff of alcohol.  Since I've let them try it, it's no longer some big enticing mysterious forbidden fruit.  Lots of kids go to college and go from one drinking binge to another because they get their first taste of alcohol there.

And these limits depend on the kids and their temperaments and their characters.  With some you need to be more strict, whereas with others you need to give them a little more latitude.  So, for instance, I have one son who's an extreme choleric.  I could beat him to within an inch of his life, and he would just grit his teeth in defiance more sternly with each blow.  On the other hand, I have a couple of girls who break down into uncontrolled hysterical crying if I but raise my voice ever so slightly.